All I know is that the older I get, the less I'm sure of and the more fun learning is. When you don't already know everything, the world is yours to learn. The problem with knowing everything, of course, is that you will never know everything. The more doors you close through thinking you know, the less you are open to learning. Besides, being open to alternate ideas keeps one from being dogmatic -- and how fun is dogmatism? Socrates had it right.

Remember this quote from "Dandelion Wine"?
"When you're seventeen, you know everything. When you're twenty-seven, if you still know everything, you're still seventeen."

Since reading Mr. Dark's post, and then Braling II's reply, I have been searching through scenes and characters. A paraphrase: I was born a fool, and, after all is said and done and the last day has arrived, I will be the same fool.

It has been elusive, so who can help? From DW, I believe, but what character and when?
It rings a bit of Faber, but I think not!

[/QUOTE]Way to pat yourself on the back there. I wonder...have you heard of Socrates? "The only true knowledge is in knowing that you know nothing." How far are you from arrogant?[/QUOTE]

I wonder if you're being confrontational & subtly trying to insult me because you're a Christian & you're offended by the fact that I'm an Atheist, or if there's another reason.

To stay on topic though, I was simply saying that it's silly to generalize & state that a person (especially Asimov) must be ignorant because they don't believe in God.

Luckily, I'm able to have a differing opinion without being a jerk about it!

Andrew,

I’m not sure that Yestermorrow was being a jerk about anything. Since you emphasized, using all caps, how FAR you were from being ignorant, I think he took your statement at face value and didn’t read any irony into it. (I know I didn’t; perhaps we’re both wrong.) His point was that anyone who thinks they’re far from ignorant may, in fact, be too ignorant to realize they’re ignorant about some things, especially their own ignorance. Yestermorrow’s question to you implied you were arrogant for that belief. Maybe he should have chosen a different word. But don’t be thin-skinned. We’re all friend here but sometimes we write differently than what we really mean to say.

As for Dandelion’s original statement about Asimov and atheism and ignorance, I think she was being ironic. I’m not sure if she still holds that belief but she was pointing out why she hadn’t read Asimov and sort of poking fun at her younger self. No big deal.

However, as a Christian, I must admit to the same prejudice when an author’s faith is known. Surely you feel the same way. In a world that’s full of things to read, you have to set certain criteria to eliminate those authors you might not enjoy. Does that mean you shouldn’t try authors who challenge your beliefs? Not at all. But you’ll admit a writer’s work often resonates more when you find common ground and if, for you, like for me, time is precious, then you’ll unlikely stray far from what’s comfortable. For me, religious faith is too personal to set aside when choosing an author to read but sometimes it doesn’t matter. Now, if you’re talking about which flavor of ice cream is better, well, then, that’s a different set of criteria altogether.

To bring it back to Bradbury: I don’t think I entirely agree with Bradbury about questions of faith but I’ve found that hasn’t limited his ability to deeply move me. I can’t necessarily say that about Asimov. It’s been far too long since I’ve read his work and, frankly, I have no desire to return to it. Is it because of his faith? That’s part of it, I’ll admit. Mostly, though, it’s because that I find, when I skim his books, he has nothing at all to say to me that Bradbury doesn’t say to me in a better way.

Best,

Pete

Andrew, I must apologize. I wasn't trying to insult you, and though I am Christian, I am certainly not offended that you are an atheist (my girlfriend, whom I love, is an atheist). I was only pointing out, as pterran suggested, that for one to think he or she is so wise is not only a manifestation of ignorance, but also arrogance.
Perhaps I shouldhave picked a different word, but I couldn't help myself with the word play of the similar-sounding words. And it's possible that I misunderstood you, considering tone is hard to convey sometimes in an online message board.

Pete, I have not read much Asimov, but I like what you wrote about Bradbury's ability to say essentially the same things, but in a better way. I'll need to read more Asimov, but I can see how this is true.

Asimov did two things for me. He wrote great fiction - The Gods Themselves, The Foundation Trilogy, etc. - and he wrote great prose on science. The science prose got me to question things in general and uncapped a latent desire to learn about the universe, shown the way by a great scientist who could make hard ideas seems easy to comprehend, thus removing anxiety from the act of learning. I really miss him, though he is still on my book shelves in both formats.

Bradbury is a poet who wrote about fantastic things that could have happened. His science was not as important as his moral sensitivity and snapshots of human interactions. That is why he touches many of us who know the science is lacking, but feel the power of the poetry and can overlook the errors.

I put Arthur C. Clark up there with the two as well - Childhood's End, Rama series, etc. - another very well educated scientific mind that could communicate to the rest of us how things would, and did, change with the understanding of scientific inquiry and the application of physics for the betterment of humankind.

I am not sure about all of that but I need to know how many of you have anteaters

I've got one!!! Anybody else?

quote:

Originally posted by ant-eater 2:
Anteaters Rock!!!

yup

quote:

Originally posted by Isaac Asimov:
Since I am an athiest and do not believe that either God or Satan, Heaven or Hell exists, I can only suppose that when I die, there will only be an eternity of nothingness to follow. People may well ask if this isn't a bleak and hopeless belief. How can I live with the specter of nothingness hanging over my head?
I don't find it a specter. There is nothing frightening about an eternal dreamless sleep. Surely it is better than eternal torment in Hell or eternal boredom in Heaven."

An athiest's biggest problem is not their criticism, which I find quite accurate in many cases, but that the Christianity they reject is a very poor representation of what Christianity was meant to be. It is because they know no other Christianity than this popular expression, they believe that atheism is the only viable alternative to the Christianity they have known and rejected. They have never explored the essence of Christianity because that essence lives in such tiny and hidden places. I think the theism of popular Christianity is dying and that is why many people think Christianity is dying. The idea that God is a supernatural being, who inhabits outer space somewhere and who occasionally intervenes in this world in miraculous ways, is not a credible concept to many, me included. Since this is the only concept of God that many people can imagine, they see atheism as the only viable alternative. Nothing reveals better the bleakness of so much of contemporary Christianity.

Time for my Hopko quote again?

quote:

Originally posted by Braling II:
Time for my Hopko quote again?

Thomas or Basil?

As to the question, "What can someone too ignorant even to believe in God tell me?" . . . well, they would probably not be able to wax eloquent about God, but could, perhaps, speak to many, many subjects outside of the question of God?

Mr. Dark, you do brighten up the board.

***

Doug, it’s not just Christianity that atheists reject. By definition it’s the whole kit and the caboodle too.

Caboodle is a good word.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Chapter 31,